Historical Jesus scholarship

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by MrMacSon »

just realized I spelt "copped" as 'coped' in that post :oops:

I agree mythics is a small (and somewhat confusing!) aspect of determining issues around Jesus scholarship.
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eric
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:42 am

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by Eric »

MrMacSon wrote:just realized I spelt "copped" as 'coped' in that post :oops:

I agree mythics is a small (and somewhat confusion) aspect of determining issues around Jesus scholarship.
LOL...I'll ignore your missspelings if you ignore mine...fair enough?
To become fully human is divine.
sidmartin
Posts: 2
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:33 pm

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by sidmartin »

Ehrman asks rhetorically whether an inquirer would not rather have a dentist work on his teeth, as an analogy for consulting scholars like Ehrman who affirm the historicity of Jesus. My answer is that, yes, I would like to have a dentist work on my teeth, but I would prefer to have one who knew something about tooth decay. Ehrman admits that he had not heard of mythicism until recently (although Schweizer discussed it in Quest, which Ehrman should have read.) My New Testament professor in seminary said offhandedly that no one had ever doubted that Jesus existed "physically." If New Testment scholars have not studied the historicity of Jesus, they can hardly be considered experts on the subject. The truth is that New Testmanet scholars simply take the historicity of Jesus for granted and build their career on that unexamined assumption. They conprise what I call the Jesus Guild, which consists of all those whose careers are based on the study of Jesus. They are understandably resistant to the idea that there was no Jesus to study.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by MrMacSon »

sidmartin wrote: ... My New Testament professor in seminary said offhandedly that no one had ever doubted that Jesus existed "physically."
Yes, that is my understanding of what was widely believed until a few were allowed to espouse inquiry during the Enlightenment, and may have been gnerally believed well beyond the Enlightenment.


It seems this has become true in the last century or two:
sidmartin wrote: The truth is that New Testament scholars simply take the historicity of Jesus for granted and build their career on that unexamined assumption. They comprise what I call the Jesus Guild, which consists of all those whose careers are based on the study of Jesus. They are understandably resistant to the idea that there was no Jesus to study.
I'd say "the Academy" would be pushing a historical Jesus
  • * as a push-back against historical-Jesus-inquiry, &
    * to provide a fall-back hook - of a real person - for those that loose faith in the supernatural.
I also agree
If New Testament scholars have not studied the historicity of Jesus, they can hardly be considered experts on the subject.
They should be aware of difficulties in this area: it is likely they will increasingly be, but to what extent they acknowledge difficulties will likely vary form person to person, and institutions will vary on how they portray the institutions creed.
dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Historical Jesus scholarship

Post by dewitness »

sidmartin wrote:Ehrman asks rhetorically whether an inquirer would not rather have a dentist work on his teeth, as an analogy for consulting scholars like Ehrman who affirm the historicity of Jesus. My answer is that, yes, I would like to have a dentist work on my teeth, but I would prefer to have one who knew something about tooth decay. Ehrman admits that he had not heard of mythicism until recently (although Schweizer discussed it in Quest, which Ehrman should have read.) My New Testament professor in seminary said offhandedly that no one had ever doubted that Jesus existed "physically." If New Testment scholars have not studied the historicity of Jesus, they can hardly be considered experts on the subject. The truth is that New Testmanet scholars simply take the historicity of Jesus for granted and build their career on that unexamined assumption. They conprise what I call the Jesus Guild, which consists of all those whose careers are based on the study of Jesus. They are understandably resistant to the idea that there was no Jesus to study.
Ehrman should have heard of Bruno Bauer.
Ehrman seems not to realise that his claim about when he heard about mythicism is highly questionable.

How can Ehrman be considered a serious historian and heard about mythicism from e-mails?
Post Reply